[russotto]

Which of course is why Jag and the Europeans like it. And why even the Clinton Administration wouldn't push it.

There's only two real ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. One is a massive increase in the use of nuclear energy, and you _know_ that ain't going to fly politically. The other is the mother of all austerity plans; the only way to reduce CO2 significantly is to burn a lot fewer hydrocarbons. That means lots less energy use. At first the US could simply accelerate the transfer of energy-intensive processes to countries not as constrained by the treaty. But when that runs out, it's bye-bye cars, bye-bye air conditioning and heating, bye-bye refrigeration, etc. And since people won't give these things up voluntarily, the government will have to slide even faster towards totalitarianism.

And all for a theory about a chaotic system for which we have only the fuzziest ideas of the initial conditions and processes involved. New _massive_ carbon sources and sinks are regularly discovered, and yet some scientists feel confident predicting disaster.

I can't promise the predicted disaster won't happen. What I _can_ promise is that the result of the US joining and observing Kyoto will be at least as bad. We'd do better to have New Jersey slip into the sea.